. . . Dan Popkey and the rest of the Idaho Statesman staff. The former Gannett paper just learned it was among three Pulitzer finalists in breaking news. Whoo-hoo! Go, Dan! The judges cited the Statesman for "tenacious coverage of the twists and turns in the scandal involving the state's senator, Larry Craig.'' (The prize went to The Washington Post, for the Virginia Tech shooting.)[Image: the main Craig story, Aug. 28, 2007]
I believe this nomination was the closest Gannett came to winning a Pulitzer this year. Background: The company sold The Statesman in 2005 to Knight Ridder; the Boise paper is now owned by McClatchy. (Note: I worked at the Statesman from 1991-96.)
ReplyDeletePlease impress us with the stellar record of Gannett with Pulitzer's.
ReplyDeleteNeuharth, and Curley were journalists by background. What did they gain for the world? Or was and is this only a question of "return on investment?"
I forgot. Did I ever really work for a newspaper? Or was this just an investment company?
Get real.
Congrats to the staff at The Statesman - it's a fine paper!
ReplyDeleteCongrats to the staff of the Idaho Statesman Journal for being a named finalist. And congrats to these journalists for their liberation from Gannett.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell, no Gannett paper has won a Pulitzer for its articles since the Great Falls, Montana, Tribune did so for explanatory reporting in 2000. The Detroit News (which was a Gannett paper at the time) and the Pensacola News-Journal were finalists for public service in 2003.
Guess they had to leave the fold to be taken seriously! ... I do have to wonder how another, similar Gannett paper in these times (smallish-midsized daily in isolated market -- think Reno, Sioux Falls, et al.) would have fared. I suspect they wouldn't have had enough resources to throw at the big story to do it the justice that the Statesman did.
ReplyDeleteCongrats to them, indeed ...
Guess they had to leave the fold to be taken seriously! ... I do have to wonder how another, similar Gannett paper in these times (smallish-midsized daily in isolated market -- think Reno, Sioux Falls, et al.) would have fared. I suspect they wouldn't have had enough resources to throw at the big story to do it the justice that the Statesman did.
ReplyDeleteCongrats to them, indeed ...
Whoa, now, little buddies...the Pulitzers are hardly the bellwether of fine journalism. It has become (or maybe it always was), an insiders' club for ancient family-owned papers. Since the pool is rapidly shrinking, the WP swept just to show that old traditions die hard. Some of the categories don't even pass the smell test. Look at the winner in feature photos, then look at who sat on the jury and who runs the board.
ReplyDeleteSo, excuse me if I'm just a bit cynical when someone says there ain't no corporate ownership prejudice on the board.
GCI does good work, and so do family-owned papers. But, historically, corps have been shut out, even after they sweep other major contests.
Of course there is a bias against Gannett-owned papers among the Pulitzer judges. But I still feel the papers under Gannett's control would have won more Pulitzers on a more consistent basis if they had more editorial autonomy. There are MANY talented people in Gannett. But far too many of them spend their time focused on carrying out the latest initiative from Gannett corporate. There are way too many staffers more worried about keeping their papers' blogs on such vital subjects as pets up to date than in telling the great stories in their towns.
ReplyDelete